MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996163256 · doi:10.1139/x03-028

Phytotoxicity of American beech leaf leachate to sugar maple seedlings in a greenhouse experiment

2003· article· en· W1996163256 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elizabeth Hane, Steven P. Hamburg, Adelia Barber, Jennifer A. Plaut

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLichen and fungal ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMapleBeechSugarLeachateAceraceaeSeedlingBotanyHorticultureAgronomyNutrientBiologyChemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an effort to reexamine the factors that affect codominance of American beech (Fagus grandifolia Ehrh.) and sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.), a greenhouse experiment was conducted to test the potential phytotoxic effects of American beech leaf leachate on sugar maple seedlings. We utilized an experimental protocol that addressed phytotoxic, nutrient, and pH effects by watering seedlings with seven treatment solutions: simulated throughfall water, average and dilute concentrations of beech leachate, average and dilute concentrations of maple leachate, and average and dilute concentrations of nutrient solutions. Sugar maple leachate had no effect on sugar maple seedling development, chemistry, or physiology. However, sugar maple seedlings exposed to average levels of beech leachate had significantly lower leaf area, fewer nodes, lower biomass, higher carbon assimilation rates, and higher stomatal conductance than seedlings exposed to the control solution. Results suggest that secondary compounds in beech leaf leachate are suppressing sugar maple seedling development and that field experiments are needed to explore the potential allelopathic relationship between these species.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.633
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations57
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicLichen and fungal ecologyFrench-language works237,207